Breaking SUPREME COURT CRACKS DOWN ON HOME LOAN SUBVENTION FRAUD: CBI PROBE EXPEDITED, 30-DAY SANCTION DEADLINE FOR BANK OFFICIALS
New Delhi · Monday, 10 August 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law — free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2018-03-28 allowed

P. Meenakshisundaram vs P. Vijayakumar & Anr

Bench: 2 — Uday Umesh Lalit

In Brief

A property owner agreed to sell his mortgaged property to a buyer for Rs.37.5 lakhs. After the buyer paid partial advances totalling Rs.18 lakhs over an extended period but took no meaningful action for years, he sued for specific performance. The Supreme Court held that the buyer had failed to demonstrate continuous readiness and willingness to complete the transaction as required by law, citing long gaps without action and sporadic payments. The Court dismissed the specific performance suit, ordered the buyer to return possession, and required the seller to refund the Rs.18 lakhs advance. No mesne profits were awarded as the seller had retained the advance amounts received."

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Specific Performance Specific Relief Act, 1963 Readiness and Willingness Contract Law Sale of Property Equity and Restitution

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.

Register Free Login